Academics Stand Against Poverty Journal(2023)/Awarded 1st Place in the 8th Amartya Sen Essay Prize 2021 by Yale University Global Justice Program

90% of Myanmar's jade exports to China every year. Chinese culture,  corruption, and capital outflows in the renminbi drive demand for Myanmar’s jade. Such demand sustains the vicious cycle between jade and armed conflict in Myanmar’s jade business, aggravating human rights violations and environmental destruction in the Kachin State and Mandalay Region, jade-rich areas in Myanmar. However, current international sanctions and recommendations that aim to curtail the illicit financial flows in Myanmar’s jade business overlook the significant role the government of China can play to fundamentally remove cyclical violence from Myanmar’s jade industries. President Xi Jinping’s political goals on anti-corruption and capital control have caused the demand for Myanmar’s jade to plummet since 2014 and can continue suppressing demand in the future. In conclusion, to cut off the jade funds flowing to the Myanmar military, the international community needs to boycott all jade from Myanmar and jade products that are made in China but originate from Myanmar. The central government of China must continue its Anti-Corruption Campaign and capital control policy.

Business and Human Rights Journal, Cambridge University Press(July, 2022)

Victims of transnational human rights violations caused by multinational corporations (MNCs) are often confronted with substantial impediments to effective remedies. While justice is de facto unattainable in host state courts, due to weak government or the absence of judicial independence, barriers that prevent victims from litigating in home states are no less insurmountable. Transnational litigation in home states has faced jurisdictional challenges. Defendant corporations have argued that home state courts are not the most appropriate forum to hear a case involving foreign torts.

Vol. 26 Legal Symposium, Li Mo  Foundation (2022) /Awarded 1st Place in the Legal Essay Prize 2020 by Taiwan's Li Mo  Foundation

In 2009, Taiwan domesticated the ICCPR and ICESCR, automatically incorporating equal protection for transgender and non-binary individuals into its domestic legal system. Although Taiwan's Constitutional Court has not yet recognized the equal rights of transgender and non-binary individuals as it has for women and the homosexual community, Taiwan's courts should have acknowledged and safeguarded their right to equality since the domestication of the ICCPR and ICESCR. This article examines an ongoing constitutional lawsuit filed by a non-binary police officer who was terminated in 2014 for cross-dressing, disputing the equal right to work in Taiwan. The article criticizes Taiwan's Supreme Administrative Court for disregarding the equal protection of rights for transgender and non-binary individuals, while arguing that Taiwan's Constitutional Court should recognize their right to equality based on both the country's Constitution and the provisions of the ICCPR and ICESCR.)

李模務實法學基金會 判解研究彙編第26（2022）

憲法第7條明文揭示之「男女」平等原則迭經多號大法官解釋後，女性之平等權保障已日漸完備。除了女性以外，同性戀族群在異性戀主流的法律體制飽受之劣勢，亦在大法官釋字第748號解釋以後開始扭轉。從表面上看來，我國法律目前似乎只保障順性別者之平等權利，對如同政務委員唐鳳，因不尋常的性別認同而飽受歧視之跨性別者，相關權利保障付之闕如。本文聚焦之最高行政法院108年度判字第22號與第46號判決本於相同事實所作成，皆蘊含相同誤解。實則，我國對於跨性別者之保障規範並不以內國制定法為限，我國既以將「兩公約」內國法化，則無待另立新法，兩公約對於跨性別者之保障即自動與我內國法體系匯流，並應成為個案中跨性別者主張反歧視與基本權保障之規範依據。

Chinese(Taiwan) Review of International and Transnational Law, 2023 forthcoming

In the Gambia v. Myanmar case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed the standing of non-injured States to sue other States for the crime of genocide. This article provides an overview of the racial conflicts between the Rohingya people and the Myanmar military, examines the provisional measures issued in response to this conflict, evaluates the significance of these measures in the jurisprudence of preemptory norms, explores the rationale behind the concept of ius standi, and compares this order with other important ICJ precedents concerning ius standi and jus cogens.

The article concludes that the provisional measures in the Gambia v. Myanmar case mark a significant milestone in the jurisprudence of jus cogens and predicts a paradigm shift in public international law. The rationale behind the recognition of ius standi in this case sets a precedent for non-injured States to bring cases involving violations of jus cogens, thereby upholding the supremacy of these norms and reinforcing the authority of future ICJ decisions.

超國界法評論 （預計刊登 2023）

絕對規律在本案暫時處分以後，具有程序法效力，使不具備個案實質關聯性的國家，仍得逕向國際法院，起訴他國違反絕對規律。本文從緬甸軍方與羅興亞人，數十年的種族衝突談起，進而分析整理國際法院在去年所作，甘比亞訴緬甸的暫時處分。最後，本文回顧國際法院在涉及絕對規律的重要案件中，法院對原告當事人適格之論理，並與本案暫時處分當事人適格之論理，一併比較分析。本文認為，本案暫時處分為絕對規律的效力，帶來重大突破，是絕對規律在國際法發展的分水嶺，預計帶來國際法的規範典範轉移。 

Formosa Transnational Law Review (April,  2022)/Awarded the Banking Research Grant 2021 by Taiwan Cooperative  Bank

Climate change has created an urgent need for decarbonization in Taiwan's shipping industry. However, Taiwan currently lacks the necessary financing projects to address this transition. Moreover, its financial institutions have yet to incorporate climate change risks into investment decisions, failing to align with the global trend of green finance.

To address the challenges posed by climate change in both the shipping and financial sectors, leading international shipping finance banks, including Citibank, HSBC, Dutch Bank, and Société Générale, joined forces in 2019 to establish the "Poseidon Principles." This global framework integrates green finance and low-carbon shipping, offering self-regulatory guidelines for signatory banks to integrate carbon considerations into lending decisions. Currently, the "Poseidon Principles" have attracted the signing of banks that account for over one-third of global shipping finance, and most importantly, Japanese banks, such as Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Shinsei Bank, have taken the lead among Asian banks by signing the "Poseidon Principles."

This paper evaluates the global landscape of green shipping finance, introduces the self-regulatory mechanism of the Poseidon Principles, and advocates for Taiwan's Financial Supervisory Commission to encourage Taiwanese banks to sign these principles. By doing so, it will enhance Taiwanese banks' awareness of carbon impact in shipping finance decisions and could increase financial support for the development of Taiwan's green shipping industry.

氣候變遷對我國航運業帶來了減碳轉型的必然趨勢，需要我國金融界注入相應的資金以應對。然而，我國目前缺乏相應的融資專案，並存在著金融機構未將氣候變遷風險納入投融資決策以及國際接軌不足的問題。為因應氣候變遷對航運業和金融業所帶來的挑戰，國際上的大型航運融資銀行（如花旗銀行、匯豐銀行、荷蘭銀行、法國興業銀行）於2019年共同發起了一項綠色金融自律規範，即「波賽頓原則」。該原則結合了綠色金融與低碳航運，並開放全球銀行簽署。目前，「波賽頓原則」已吸引全球航運融資的三分之一的銀行簽署，其中包括日本三井住友銀行和日本新生銀行等先行的亞洲銀行。本文認為，如金管會能鼓勵我國銀行簽署「波賽頓原則」，將對我國航運業的減碳轉型和綠色金融的國際接軌都帶來益處。

Chinese Association of Arbitration (CAA) Arbitration Journal (March, 2022)

In the case of G.E. Energy v. Outokumpu, the United States Supreme Court recognized the applicability of the principle of estoppel to disputes that go beyond arbitration agreements or clauses and involve non-signatory parties. This acknowledgment allows the involved parties to expand the scope of dispute resolution. The ruling brought clarity to the long-standing uncertainty among federal appellate courts regarding the order of precedence between the Federal Arbitration Act, state contract laws, and the New York Convention. This decision carries significant implications for future non-signatory stakeholders, including foreign subcontractors or contractors, as it empowers them to avoid transnational litigation and instead utilizes international arbitration procedures to effectively resolve disputes. However, due to the limited scope of this ruling, disputes regarding the governing law of the estoppel principle and the potential conflict between the estoppel principle and the principle of consent in arbitration agreements remain unresolved.

2020年6月美國聯邦最高法院以本案判決肯認,在涉及眾多跨國利害關係人,故可能牽連諸多非仲裁協議(或條款)簽字方的爭端中,衡平禁反言原則得以作為當事人尋求擴大紛爭解決範圍的依據之一。本判決釐清長久以來,聯邦巡迴上訴法院間,對於聯邦仲裁法、各州契約法以及紐約公約,三者適用優先順序的疑義,對於日後作為非簽字的利害關係人,諸如異國的分包商或承包商,得以免於跨國訟累,並依據衡平禁反言原則,利用國際仲裁程序一次性地終局解決紛爭,有深遠影響。惟因本判決的範圍相當限縮,故關於衡平禁反言原則的準據法爭議,以及衡平禁反言原則與仲裁協議的合意原則之衝突,仍懸而未決。

While Taiwan boasts a country of human rights protection, overseas subsidiaries of Taiwanese multinational enterprises have repeatedly infringed upon the human rights of overseas third parties or caused large-scale environmental pollutions. The human rights violations and corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) malpractice of these overseas subsidiaries have triggered international condemnation, huge compensation for damages, and a large amount of fines that could indirectly impair the economic interests of the shareholders of the controlling company. The overseas subsidiaries with bad CSR records discredit Taiwan as a country of human rights protection and defy the principle inscribed in the United Nations Guiding Principles as well as OECD guidelines that businesses should respect human rights. Most importantly, it violates Taiwan's obligation under ICCPR, ICESCR, and CRC that the state must regulate its multinational enterprises to avoid overseas human rights violations.

我國自詡為人權國家，惟我國跨國集團海外從屬公司屢次因侵害海外第三人 之權益或造成大規模環境污染，引起國際譴責、巨額損害賠償以及罰款，也間接損 害控制公司股東之經濟利益。我國跨國集團海外從屬公司侵害人權與污染環境之營業行為之情形，不僅使我國人權國家之形象蒙塵，亦與聯合國指導原則以及 OECD 指導綱領等倡導企業尊重人權之國際規範潮流不符，更違背我國在兩公約 及兒童權利公約之拘束下應規範跨國集團避免海外人權侵害的國家義務。 然而我國現行公司法制就上述問題是否提供充足的解決方法，並不明確。首 先，海外從屬公司之企業社會責任事項，依我國公司法與公發公司內控準則，不必 然係控制公司在法律上須負責監督之事項。其次，就前開事項，控制公司股東對從 屬公司似無資訊請求權。再者，縱使控制公司對從屬公司具有實質控制力，是否因 此即須依公司法23 條第1 項負擔對從屬公司之守法義務，並不確定。最後，倘若 控制公司未監督從屬公司導致從屬公司造成第三人之權益受損，此際權益受損之 第三人得否依公司法第23 條第2 項對控制公司請求損害賠償，亦有疑問。準此， 如何從法制層面強化與建構我國跨國集團控制公司對海外從屬公司企業社會責任 行為之監督義務，即為我國公司法制有待釐清之處。本文參考法國、荷蘭、英國與 德國之立法與司法實務，提出我國如何建構跨國集團控制公司對海外從屬公司企 業社會則任監督義務之芻議。